What's Natural about Polar Bear Habitat Destruction?

Steele Which Narrative to Believe?

This review of May 1st What’s Natural? will take the form of a direct letter to Mr. Steele.

Jim Steele,

I thought your title “Polar Bears. Which narrative to believe?” was apropos considering your freewheeling narrative. You ask which narrative to believe?  Indeed, that is the question.  So, lets get on with it.  Why should we believe your’s?

In the first column (4/17/18) of this double-bill, you use an Inuit word in a way, which I found out, locals of Nunavut found foreign.  Yes, I shared your column with a few.  That got me to thinking that perhaps your usage was simply a gratuitous prop to impress your audience.  Or what?

Then you drag a scientist from the middle of New York City into the middle of the Nunavut Polar Bear controversy - though said scientist has never spoken on the topic in any way.  He’ll tell you frankly: “I know nothing about it.” 

Why did you need to fabricate words to put into Gavin Schmidt’s mouth?  Simply to set him up as the straight-guy for your zinger punchline:  

“If you dare disagree with models of gloom and doom, you are attacked as an ignorant denier.” 

What's Natural about Jim Steele's Astroturfing?

After reviewing Steele’s odd April 17th “Safe Space” column about opinions regarding Polar Bears in the Inuit’s warming Arctic world, I became curious and looked up the word Kappiananngittuq which Jim tossed around so glibly. 

I googled _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ and I’ll tell you, I was blindsided by the four pages worth of google search results to forty articles - it turned out that upon closer examination there were 29 links to articles that mirrored the same deceptive What's Natural? article.  

What is going on?  Have Jim Steele, Sherman Frederick, Anthony Watts mainlined into a social media troll factory or something?  Or is it just astroturfing?  

Then I thought of the rationalists, the science respecting side of this public dialogue, ten years I’ve been working at trying to network with like minded, but there’s no network out there.  Like everyone is off doing their own thing and no one has the time to care about the rest of it.  Or something like that.  

I don’t know.  It's like very few seem to appreciate the gravity of the Faith-Blinded political drive to destroy rationalism and democratic governance.  Think I'm exaggerating, ever listen to American Christian radio!?  Ever listen to FOX, or Trump?  

All I do know is the clock keeps ticking and the ruthless intellectual frauds and rhetorical bullies continue having free reign to mislead and deceive and slander and astroturf their utterly self-destructive delusional crap as much as they like.  It’s a disgrace, the founding fathers of the intellectual enlightenment would be appalled.

Below I include the google screen shots if anyone cares to investigate.  After that I share a good sized collection of articles about Social Media manipulation.

Google search results for _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ (May 28, 2019)

click on the images for a clear view:

What's Natural about Jim Steele's Safe Space?

https://nationalpost.com/news/so-many-bears-draft-plan-says-nunavut-polar-bear-numbers-unsafe

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

My intention is a review of 'libertarian' deception in action.

Click on image for better viewing and comparing.

Steele never explains that "safe space", instead he used his soapbox to praise Nunavut’s Inuit hunters for their superior wildlife observation skills that, according to Steele, put scientists to shame.

This column was so lacking in anything to do with climate science, that I have to change my approach again, this time simply dissect and comment.

The column’s title proclaims: “Can We Kappiananngittuq?” - subtitled, “We need a safe place to discuss global climate topics.” - and the center-piece quote reads: “I suggest we all could benefit by debating kappiananngittuq style.” 

         

Begs the question, what would a public “safe space to discuss” climate science look like Jim? 

What guidelines would you expect us to follow?  

Would honesty be important?

When I’m discussing facts I’ve gathered, would there be an expectation that I be truthful?  That I honesty and accurately represent the information I’ve collected?

When I’m describing the data and work of an ‘opponent’ would there be an expectation that I honesty represent my adversary’s data?

Would it be a general betrayal to substitute a dishonest argument that prop up false assertions, while hiding my opponent’s facts?

In a kappiananngittuq, is there an expectation to respect the experience, knowledge and merits of each individual, even your opponents?

In a kappiananngittuq, if it’s explained to you, how you are mistaken about something, do you sit there striving to listen, understand and absorb the lesson?

In a kappiananngittuq, is learning and a better communal understanding of our collective real world situation the goal?  

These are important questions.  I believe the answers are self evident: YES on all counts.  I wonder how Jim Steele would answer?  

Climate-Change Denial by Proxy, Polar Bears, Blogs and Steele

The two most recent "What's Natural?" columns worth of crazy making by Jim Steele revolves around Polar Bear studies, which Steele first misrepresents, then he offers his tortured conclusion, it's proof that manmade global warming is a hoax.  In reaching out to scientists he named, one shared the following with me when I asked if he knew of any serious papers that looked into contrarian deception on this topic:

“The paper by Harvey et al. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513 is the best rebuttal against the deniers when it comes to polar bears.”  

I was so impressed with the read, and since it has a Creative Commons Attribution, I'm going to take advantage of their invitation and share the entire paper here and hope that a few make the time to read this informative collection of facts.

EDITOR'S CHOICE

Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy

Jeffrey A Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J M Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky 

BioScience, Volume 68, Issue 4, April 2018, Pages 281–287, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix133

Published: 29 November 2017

Abstract

Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. 

However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. 

Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. 

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. 

Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. 

By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. 

To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.   

 (CC:  May I suggest students and lay-people have a responsibility to defend the science - scientists are busy with their work!  Besides most contrarian arguments have nothing to do with the actual science and everything to do with rhetorical deception.)

Steele: What's Natural about the LIA? CC: Allow me to Explain.

Okay, time for some catch up - Pacifica Tribune’s ‘What’s Natural?” April 9th.

So what, who cares, you may ask?  Well, since it’s such a text book example of “libertarian” and GOP’s disingenuous climate education debate strategies - that is, distract, confuse, conjure up a false narrative, call it a victory, then slam the door on dialogue and thinking - I believe it’s important to familiarize rationalists with the tactics. 

Although this time I’m going to change up my approach and treat Steele's LIA story as though it were the homework assignment of a school boy, with me being challenged to tutor the recalcitrant fibber into appreciating the contrasts between the LIA and current human impacts on Earth’s climate.

I’ve reproduced his column then simply reference the paragraphs as I go through it for my hostile student.  Please skim all the way to the end, since I wait until after my dialogue with Steele for my usual cornucopia of further reading sources, re. LIA, who is Dr.Mann, what is the hockey stick, scientific consensus, etc.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Little Ice Age - Back to the Future

What’s Natural?  Pacifica Tribune,  April 9, 2019, by Jim Steele

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

My intention is a review of 'libertarian' deception in action.

Click on image for better viewing and comparing.

¶1

What’s with this “extreme scientists?”  Who are you calling extreme?  

Think about it, I know you often disparage the consensus understanding and the scientific community that put it together.  But those aren’t extremists, they are conservative, thoughtful, cautious, even establishment people.  Besides individuals go into Earth sciences for the learning about Earth, always seeking a more thorough understanding of the world that surrounds us.  Even if money grubbers can’t wrap their heads around the notion.  

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WLArrksB4

Published on Aug 24, 2015

Want to discuss “extremists”?
It's usually the overly self-certain, ironically though, they seem to produce work that colleagues and experienced experts and clients find inadequate.  When confronted with their errors and short comings, rather than owning the problem, they feel rage and anger towards the messengers.

Supplement - What's Natural about Steele's Conundrum? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/19

A supplement to "What's Natural about Steele's Greenland conundrum? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/2019."  Since I found way more information than I had room for I've decided to add this appendix of valuable science information about Greenland and our global heat and moisture distribution engine.

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

My intention is a point by point review of 'libertarian' deception in action.

Click on image for better viewing and comparing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#A) Wrote about this in a previous post.

MARCH 29, 2019

Steele, what’s unnatural about the Glacier Girl? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/2019

Here I want to focus on the first couple paragraphs in March 20th, Pacifica Tribune’s What’s Natural? column.  It contains a melodramatic lead in with a curious narrative built around the P-38 dug out of a Greenland glacier.  Since this back story turned into such a fascinating fun, if oh so time consuming project, I figure it’s worth posting all this stuff on it’s own stage.

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/03/steele-glacier-girl-pacificatribune.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#B)   Steele’s confusion about CarbonDioxide,

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature

Adolf Stips, Diego Macias, Clare Coughlan, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz & X. San Liang

Scientific Reports, volume 6, Article number: 21691 (2016)

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

… Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.  …

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#C)  Steele continues, 

“But (ice loss) is rapidly reversing.”  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

September 2017

Guest post: How the Greenland ice sheet fared in 2017

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-greenland-ice-sheet-2017

Dr Ruth Mottram, Dr Peter Langen and Dr Martin Stendel are climate scientists at the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) in Copenhagen, which is part of the Polar Portal.

What's Natural about Steele's Sea Level conundrum? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/2019

In his March 20th What’s Natural? column, Jim Steele winds up in a conundrum because he’s obsessing on Greenland while trying to figure out California’s sea level rise.  It got me to thinking about those six blind men grappling to make sense of an elephant while focusing on individual parts.  

Steele’s conundrum will never get resolved until he pulls back and starts taking in the whole of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine.

The biggest problem is that Steele’s confusion is deliberate.  See, Jim’s no teacher, he’s a performance artist who has become skilled at taking bits and pieces of true facts, ignoring great swaths of important information, then concocting just so stories to entertain and sooth, rather than inform and prepare.  

He gets away with it because his audience wants to be deceived - and because rationalists fear to confront such belligerent self-certain willful ignorance. 

Why do I care?  Because I love this planet and truth matters! 

Because someone needs to be a Witness for honesty and defender of We The People’s right to learn about this wonderful fantastical planet Earth that created us >>> without the constant cross screaming of malicious dedicated liars!

I’ve dissected March 20th’s Pacifica Tribune’s What’s Natural? because it offers me another opportunity to examine ‘libertarian’ fraud in action, while giving me an excuse to share a treasure trove of related links to solid educational resources for the curious.  

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

My intention is a point by point review of 'libertarian' deception in action.

Click on image for better viewing and comparing.

Peter Hadfield made an easy to follow overview of the meme Jim’s parroting.

potholer54  |  Published on May 15, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEieWJghRNY

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steele, what’s unnatural about the Glacier Girl? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/2019

Here I want to focus on the first couple paragraphs in March 20th, Pacifica Tribune’s What’s Natural? column.  It contains a melodramatic lead in with a curious narrative built around the P-38 dug out of a Greenland glacier.  Since this back story turned into such a fascinating fun, if oh so time consuming story, I figure it’s worth posting all this stuff on it’s own stage.  

(click on images for clearer image)

My question to Jim, what’s unnatural about the location of the Glacier Girl?

The P-38 is up the east coast, though somewhat inland.

http://p38assn.org/glaciergirl/recovery.htm

It starts with the Lost Squadron and the P-38 that was discovered some 264 feet, not the 300+ Steele claims, a typical example of his easy disregard for accuracy, found under the surface and some three miles down stream in a glacier.  Here Steele continues:

Steele writes:  ". . .  Southeastern Greenland had been gaining ice at a rate of 4 feet per year.

In contrast, climate scientists project Greenland will increasingly loss ice at CO2 concentrations increase.  …”

To begin with, can't we even keep the simplest basics straight?  Rate and depth of ice formation varies on such a huge varied island.  Also, please be clear it’s snow that falls on Greenland, with years, that snow gets compressed into glacial ice.

Second, there is no secret that the southeast coast of Greenland is subject to extreme maritime snows.  

Third, even in a warming world Greenland will remain below freezing most the time for quite a while.  Plus there is more moisture in today’s atmosphere.  Snow fall will happen.  

Acting as though that’s supposed to be a surprise is goofy.

Fourth, Steele still can’t wrap his head around the simple fundamental reality driving all this - it’s the atmospheric insulation - you could very accurately say that our Atmospheric Insulation Regulator was set around 285 ppm when the steam engine was invented, now we have cranked it past 410 ppm and rising fast.  

That has geophysical consequences no matter how well anyone keeps their eyes, ears, and minds shut down. 

Melting Greenland glaciers is one of the resultant* down stream cascading geophysical consequences, yes it will continue following natural cycles.  But, realize those cycles exist within an energizing global heat and moisture distribution engine.

Now we get to the story of the Glacier Girl and what she can tell us about Greenland.

What's natural about Steele's scary stories? Why Pacifica Tribune? (3/6/2019)

My previous post gave a summary of March 6th’s What’s Natural? column in the ‘libertarian’ Pacifica Tribune.   So I’ll dive straight into this, the “too long, didn’t read” part 2 intended for the student of libertarian deception.  Here I dissect the words and offer links to serious sources for the other side of Steele assertions. 

Glib misrepresentations, insulting experts and weaving transparently deceptive tales is easy - learning the facts and understanding our biosphere and climate engine that’s what requires some serious self-starter effort.  Like the difference between a vandal and a builder. 

Jim Steele’s, What’s Natural? Pacifica Tribune | March 6, 2019

(click on the image for better reading)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Since this is a Virtual Debate I drift back and forth between addressing Steele and addressing my readers}

First paragraph,  Steele gets into the Heaven’s Gate Suicide Cult.  Guess, to fluff up his audience.   When Steele tossed in:

Steele:  “the Heaven's Gate Cult. Highlv educated members …” 

I though I’d investigate, turns out People magazine printed a little bio of the unfortunates.  Not to disparage, but educationally they were actually a decidedly middling crowd: https://people.com/archive/cover-story-who-they-were-vol-47-no-14/.  Reading it, lonely people looking for simple answers is what came to my mind.

Odious sensationalistic smoke and mirrors, reckon it’s all one's left with when one doesn’t have any facts on their side?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Second paragraph,  launches into some heavy handed self promotion.  

Steele:  “I’ve pointed out how over-hunting and invasive organisms endanger species.  I’ve noted island extinctions occurred when humans imported rats, cats and mosquitos that attacked ill-prepared native species.”

Come on Jim, who’s kidding whom, that’s been text book stuff since I was in school, why do you spin it into sounding like original work or something? 

Steele:  “My research in the Sierra Nevada restored a watershed …”

I think the Sierra Valley Resource Conservation District (sierravalleyrcd.com) might not agree with Jim’s self-serving assessment.

Editor Frederick, Regarding Steele's Scary Campfire Stories. March 6, 2019

Letter to Editor Frederick, 

Regarding Jim Steele’s "What’s Natural?" Scary Campfire Stories.

March 6, 2019 - Pacifica Tribune - sent March 11, 2019

Dear Editor Fredrick,

What’s Natural? Indeed, that is the question.  It took a couple days to steel myself to tackle the Scary Campfire Stories column but I’ve been working on it much of the day and hopefully it’ll be posted soon.  I’m pretty sure my point by point review wouldn’t be of much interest around here, so I’m posting it at my ConfrontingScienceContrarians.blogspot.com - I’d much appreciate it if you could share that with your readers. Instead of details I’d like to share general impressions. 

Lets start with a summary of the column’s ten paragraphs: introduces topic with the Heaven’s Gate Suicide Cult (no crass politicization happening here); dismisses the seriousness of a 1°Centigrade rise within our global climate engine; misrepresents the facts in order to disparage a respected butterfly expert; quibbles about Polar Bear counts, while ignoring that the Arctic Ice Cap is melting away; ridicules penguin researchers for revolutionizing census gathering abilities and keeping up to date with their available data; heaps scorn on the entire climate science community because some scientist at some low point once said snow was going to disappear from England in the next decades; oh and we're to forget about “atmospheric insulation” because CO₂ is plant food; he tells us there’s far more important problems to address than our planet’s atmospheric insulation regulator going from 280 ppm when the steam engine was invented to over 410 ppm and rising fast today.

Then Steele’s coup de grâce: ”For several decades, bogus catastrophic climate-change claims have come and gone.” -“If we truly care about nature … the real problem is overhunting, invasive species and loss of habitat.”

So this is libertarian entertainment?  Is that it?  It sure isn’t serious education!  What’s natural about this contemptuous disregard for our physical Earth and it’s biosphere?  How on Earth can one hold the notion that raising the temperature of our global biosphere won’t profoundly alter its components?  

Jim Steele Responds To Citizenschallenge

Jim Steele responds to my challenge to debate his confusion strewn “What’s Natural?” column. 

from: Jim Steele | to: Sherman Frederick, Editor of the Pacifica Tribune | cc: citizenschallenge

Feb 23, 2019, 7:20 PM

Re: Steele’s take on Carl Sagan & 97% Consensus claims - via Pacifica Tribune 2/20

    

"Sherm I am sorry that you will be hounded by Peter Miesler as he attempts to denigrate me and every skeptic. 

Twice replied to his website and corrected his dishonest distortions. He deleted my posts. Thus I promised him I will not ever again bother engaging him. He has twisted that for 4 years always suggesting I am afraid to debate him.

Hmmm, ironic.  

Look at what I received a few weeks  back.

(After posting this I was surprised to see the date was before I’d written the 

Pacifica Tribune for the first time.  But the bigger point, Jim’s easy with the fibs.)

Steele continues: "He is infamous on the internet for dishonest and relentless attacks.  He has hounded colleagues at SFSU and other experts who have supported my opinions. 

Since learning I have the What's Natural column he keeps emailing me all sorts of dishonest BS so I am no going to block all his emails. (I’ve been showing him the courtesy of copying him on my submissions to the Pacifica Tribune.  Why this hysterical reaction?) So I will no longer be privy to his attacks that he emails you. (i.e. diving deep and running silent) He is simply an obsessed internet sniper. Sniping at me somehow gives purpose to his wretched life."

Jim

Mind you, this is the same guy who wrote:

Later I share the index to my thoughtful look at Steele’s presentations 

which he’s too intellectually bankrupt to debate and 

apparently somewhat desperate for no one to read or think about it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Response from Editor Sherman Frederick:

Sat, Feb 23, 8:36 PM

to Jim, Jim, citizenschallenge

No worries, Jim. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Citizenschallenge's Response to Pacifica Tribune’s Frederick:

Sun Feb, 24 - 12:06 PM

Dear Editor Frederick,

In response to Mr. Steele’s email,

1¶   What is Jim saying?  That any critique of his words is an “attempt to denigrate (him) and every skeptic”?  

¶ 2   I have a clear comment policy - rational and direct challenges to what I’ve written are welcome.  But, I will not become a billboard for garbage that totally sidesteps my dialogue.  This was clearly explained to Steele at the time. 

Steele forgets to mention that he has a standing invitation to submit an on-point guest post at my blog, which I’ve promised to publish unedited, nor annotated.  Though I would certainly follow it with my own post examining his words.

¶3   You can read all about the SFSU incident, I was seeking accountability and a bit of protection insurance, (the guy can get scary).

Steele saga - Repost 1/5 - Open let to San Francisco State University March 8, 2016)

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/03/steele-saga-15-open-let-sfsu.html

¶4   Steele writes: “He is simply an obsessed internet sniper. Sniping at me somehow gives purpose to his wretched life,”  the same guy who writes:

3. Don't: Don't attack the arguer, attack the argument. 

Steele comments: (mud-slinging dominates politics. Dismissing valid arguments by calling the arguer a (“internet sniper” or “wretched human”) muddies the science.) 

  

Doesn’t that sounds like there’s a mighty totalitarian double standard in play here?  What’s happened in our country?  I thought in America we still believed in fair and open constructive debates, or what?  Oh, and what about simple honesty?

=====================================

Incidentally, this should be of interest: